Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The present office action is responsive to communication received 6/16/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application no. 18/336,853 on 06/16/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Notes
The specification discloses “For purposes the claims, the phrase “computer storage device,”“computer storage medium,”“computer-readable storage medium,”“computer-readable storage device,”“non-transitory computer storage media” and variations thereof, does not include waves, signals, and/or other transitory and/or intangible communication media, per se” (See [0105] Original Specification). Therefore no 101 issues exist.
Objection (Informalities)
Claims 1, 9, 16 and their respective dependent claims, and additionally claim 8 recite “reducing the score” instead of “reducing the individual score”.
Appropriate correction is kindly requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 16, Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite the limitation “the other numbers” in lines 12-13 lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “the other numbers” are. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as other numbers associated with the “other identifiers”.
Regarding claims 2-8, Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claims 10-15, Claims 10-15 are dependent on claim 9, and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claims 17-20, Claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16, and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph issues of the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Šestan et al. (US 20240333683) hereinafter referred to as Jarc in view of Rambo et al. (US 10084809).
Regarding claim 1,
Jarc teaches a computer-implemented method for providing enhanced security in a system utilizing an activity heatmap with cooldown adjustments, the method for execution on the system comprising: detecting communication of individual messages directed to individual identifiers of a plurality of identifiers;
[Each message event may have a message attribute associated with the message event. For example, each message event may correspond to one or more destination addresses (e.g., phone number, phone numbers, etc.). (Jarc et al., paragraph 21)]
determining individual scores for individual identifiers of the plurality of identifiers in response to the communication of the individual messages,
[ the analyzer score for a message event may be associated with the message attribute (e.g., destination score) corresponding to the message event. (Jarc et al., paragraph 21)]
wherein an individual score for an individual identifier is based on the activity heatmap defining a number of messages directed to the individual identifier and a number of messages directed to other identifiers associated with the individual number;
[the network 125 may be a wide area network (“WAN”), a local area network (“LAN”), personal area network (“PAN”), or the like. In some embodiments, electronic network 125 includes the Internet, and information and data provided between various systems occurs online. (Jarc et al., paragraph 32, please refer to fig 1A, the network is being interpreted as the heatmap as it shows the traffic/communications provided between various systems)]
[Streaming system 102 may provide the message events to collector 114 of traffic analyzer 104. Streaming system 102 may transmit raw message event data to collector 114. (Jarc et al., paragraph 34)
[streaming system 102 may perform an action or otherwise transform message events prior to providing the message events to collector 114 (Jarc et al., paragraph 34)]
[Collector 114 may aggregate the message events received from streaming system 102 (e.g., received via network 125). Collector 114 may store the message events at database 112. (Jarc et al., paragraph 35)]
[Analyzer 110 may receive indexed message events stored in database 112 and perform traffic analysis based on the indexed message events. Analyzer 110 may analyze the indexed message events to determine an analyzer score for each of the message events. Analyzer 110 may determine an analyzer score for each message event based on the indexed data associated with the message event, based on indexed data associated with other message events, based on indexed data associated with message events having overlapping or associated message properties (e.g., destination addresses, source addresses, timing associated with one or more messages, etc.), and/or the like. (Jarc et al., paragraph 36, score is based on the stored message events by the collector which is related to the network mentioned above)]
adjusting the individual score for the individual identifier based on an age of messages directed to the individual identifier and the other numbers associated with the individual number,
[In addition to the techniques discussed above, analyzer scores may be determined based on one or more of a type of message, a certainty (e.g., a certainty score based on a confidence associated with a message event), a timestamp, a client or entity (e.g., based on client provided metrics, based on association with a client, etc.), one or more weights, decay (e.g., using a decay coefficient determined based on the duration of time that a message event is queried and a message timestamp, which decay may cause the relevance of the analyzer score for a given message event to decrease over time), or the like. (Jarc et al., paragraph 41, decaying is adjusting the score)]
[The message events may be stored such that they are associated with corresponding addresses (e.g., source addresses, destination addresses, etc.) associated with the message events. (Jarc et al., paragraph 35, other numbers associated with individual number)]
[Analyzer 110 may determine an analyzer score for each message event based on the indexed data associated with the message event, based on indexed data associated with other message events, based on indexed data associated with message events having overlapping or associated message properties (e.g., destination addresses, source addresses, timing associated with one or more messages, etc.) (Jarc et al., paragraph 36)]
wherein the adjustment to the individual score includes reducing the score based on the age of the messages from the start of a cooldown period and a predetermined decay rate,
[a decay coefficient determined based on the duration of time that a message event is queried and a message timestamp, which decay may cause the relevance of the analyzer score for a given message event to decrease over time), or the like. (Jarc et al., paragraph 41)]
[Accordingly, they analyzer score may decay over the threshold period of time (e.g., decay to 0 after 90 days). (Jarc et al., paragraph 44, decaying is based on age of message)]
wherein the cooldown period has a start time at which the decay rate starts to reduce individual scores for individual identifiers,
[Accordingly, they analyzer score may decay over the threshold period of time (e.g., decay to 0 after 90 days). (Jarc et al., paragraph 44)]
wherein the individual scores for individual identifiers are further reduced throughout the cooldown period based on the decay rate;
[Accordingly, they analyzer score may decay over the threshold period of time (e.g., decay to 0 after 90 days). (Jarc et al., paragraph 44)]
[an analyzer score may decay faster (e.g., the decay coefficient may be increased) or slower (e.g., the decay coefficient may be decreased) based on given behavior (e.g., actions with negative or unwanted associations) (Jarc et al., paragraph 44)]
determining that the individual score for the individual identifier meets one or more criteria with respect to a security threshold;
[The risk calculation service may determine a risk score for the destination address, based on the analyzer scores provided by the database and associated with the destination address (Jarc et al., paragraph 23)]
[calculating a risk score based on the analyzer score for each of the message events associated with the destination address (Jarc et al., paragraph 7, the risk score is based on the analyzer score)]
[ if a determined analyzer score exceeds a threshold score, (Jarc et al., paragraph 47)]
[ if a client confirms that a given destination address is trusted, the score associated with that destination and/or client may be 0. As another example, if the traffic associated with a given period of time and/or a given location increases beyond an expected traffic amount by a threshold amount, the analyzer scores for message events based on that traffic may be decreased (Jarc et al., paragraph 48)]
and in response to determining that the individual score for the individual identifier meets one or more criteria with respect to a security threshold, invoking a security measure for the individual identifier,
[If the risk score exceeds a threshold risk score, communication to the destination address may be blocked (e.g., the destination address may be added to a blacklist). (Jarc et al., paragraph 23)]
[calculating a risk score based on the analyzer score for each of the message events associated with the destination address (Jarc et al., paragraph 7, the risk score is based on the analyzer score)]
[risk scores for a given destination address may be determined based on one or more analyzer scores associated with the destination address (Jarc et al., paragraph 22)]
Jarc fails to explicitly disclose wherein the security measure includes at least one of generating a notification, requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to utilize other alternative message systems, or requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to upgrade permissions.
However in an analogous art Rambo discloses wherein the security measure includes at least one of generating a notification, requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to utilize other alternative message systems, or requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to upgrade permissions.
[the security module 105 may be able to lock out access to some or all functionalities of the user device, to limit the vulnerabilities detected, to provide notifications to the user about required updates, to delete data, and to lock the user device itself. Other actions are possible. (Rambo et al., column 3, lines 38-43)]
Jarc and Rambo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc to incorporate the teachings of Rambo et al. to include wherein the security measure includes at least one of generating a notification, requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to utilize other alternative message systems, or requiring accounts associated with the individual identifier to upgrade permissions, in order to determine a security measure and a priority and implements a security measure. (Rambo et al., column 4, lines 32-40)]
Regarding claim 9,
Jarc discloses a computing device for providing enhanced security in a system utilizing an activity heatmap with cooldown adjustments, comprising: one or more processing units; and a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the one or more processing units to:
[any process or operation discussed in this disclosure may be computer-implementable, such as the processes illustrated in FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B, or FIG. 4, and may be performed by one or more processors of a computer system, such as any of the systems or devices in the exemplary system 100 of FIG. 1A or exemplary system 160 of FIG. 1B, as described above. (Jarc et al., paragraph 104)]
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 1 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16,
Jarc discloses a computer-readable storage medium for providing enhanced security in a system utilizing an activity heatmap with cooldown adjustments, the computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to cause one or more processing units of the system to:
[The computer system 500 may include an internal communication bus 508, and a storage unit 506 (such as ROM, HDD, SDD, etc.) that may store data on a computer readable medium 522, although the computer system 500 may receive programming and data via network communications (e.g., over a network 125). The computer system 500 may also have a memory 504 (such as RAM) storing instructions 524 for executing techniques presented herein, although the instructions 524 may be stored temporarily or permanently within other modules of computer system 500 (e.g., processor 502 and/or computer readable medium 522). (Jarc et al., paragraph 106)]
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 1 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses The computer-implemented method of Claim 1,
wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the individual score for the individual identifier does not meet the one or more criteria with respect to the security threshold, restricting an invocation of the security measure for the individual identifier and maintaining permissions for an account associated with the identifier to continue sending messages or initiating phone calls.
[Risk calculation service 108 may provide risk scores to a client 130 via API 106, as discussed herein. Client 130 may sanitize a destination address database based on the risk score (e.g., may remove a destination based on its risk score exceeding a threshold risk score) and/or may designate a given destination address for future monitoring. (Jarc et al., paragraph 84, future monitoring may be interpreted that it maintains current permission but is in observation phase)]
Regarding claim 7 and 15,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 1 and the computing device of Claim 9,
wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, wherein the individual phone number is associated with the other phone numbers when the other phone numbers are within a predetermined range of numbers from the individual phone number, or the individual phone number is associated with the other phone numbers when the individual phone number and the other phone numbers are both within the predetermined range of numbers, or the individual phone number is associated with the other phone numbers when the individual phone number and the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common numbers or common number combinations.
[For example, each message event may correspond to one or more destination addresses (e.g., phone number, phone numbers, etc.). Accordingly, the analyzer score for a message event may be associated with the message attribute (e.g., destination score) corresponding to the message event. (Jarc et al., paragraph 21)]
Regarding claim 8,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer implemented method of Claim 1,
wherein the adjustment to the individual score includes reducing the score based on the age of the messages from a time the messages are received to a start time of a cooldown period, the predetermined decay rate, and a selected function, wherein the selected function is a linear function or a polynomial function.
[a decay coefficient may determine the rate of decrease of a given analyzer score (e.g., based on a duration of time). For example, a decay coefficient of 1.11 may cause (e.g., linearly) an analyzer score of 100 to decrease to 0 in 90 days. (Jarc et al., paragraph 49)]
Claims 2-5, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Šestan et al. (US 20240333683) hereinafter refered to as Jarc in view of Rambo et al. (US 10084809) in further view of Meredith et al. (US 10484873).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, the computing device of Claim 9, and a computer-readable storage medium of Claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier.
However in an analogous are Meredith discloses wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier.
[the processor calculates a first fraud score for the first mobile device and a second fraud score for the second mobile device. For example, a fraud score may take into account one or several features that may be indicative that a registration involves a fraudulent cloned mobile device. (Meredith et al., column 9, lines 43-48)]
[At step 255, the processor determines whether the difference between the greater of the two fraud scores and the lesser of the two fraud scores exceeds another threshold value. (Meredith et al., column 13, lines 32-35)]
Jarc, Rambo, and Meredith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc and Rambo to incorporate the teachings of Meredith et al. to include wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier, in order to detect fraudulent usage by a cloned mobile device through the use of device location tracking and current usage information. (Meredith et al., column 15, lines 50-62)]
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, the computing device of Claim 9, and a computer-readable storage medium of Claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number.
However in an analogous art Meredith discloses wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number.
[the processor calculates a first fraud score for the first mobile device and a second fraud score for the second mobile device. For example, a fraud score may take into account one or several features that may be indicative that a registration involves a fraudulent cloned mobile device. (Meredith et al., column 9, lines 43-48)]
[At step 255, the processor determines whether the difference between the greater of the two fraud scores and the lesser of the two fraud scores exceeds another threshold value. (Meredith et al., column 13, lines 32-35)]
Jarc, Rambo, and Meredith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc and Rambo to incorporate the teachings of Meredith et al. to include wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number, in order to detect fraudulent usage by a cloned mobile device through the use of device location tracking and current usage information. (Meredith et al., column 15, lines 50-62)]
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, the computing device of Claim 9, and a computer-readable storage medium of Claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other identifiers.
However in an analogous art Meredith discloses wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other identifiers.
[the processor calculates a first fraud score for the first mobile device and a second fraud score for the second mobile device. For example, a fraud score may take into account one or several features that may be indicative that a registration involves a fraudulent cloned mobile device. (Meredith et al., column 9, lines 43-48)]
[At step 255, the processor determines whether the difference between the greater of the two fraud scores and the lesser of the two fraud scores exceeds another threshold value. (Meredith et al., column 13, lines 32-35)]
Jarc, Rambo, and Meredith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc and Rambo to incorporate the teachings of Meredith et al. to include wherein the individual score for an individual identifier comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other identifiers and a difference between the other identifiers and the individual identifier, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other identifiers, in order to detect fraudulent usage by a cloned mobile device through the use of device location tracking and current usage information. (Meredith et al., column 15, lines 50-62)]
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 20,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, the computing device of Claim 9, and a computer-readable storage medium of Claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other phone numbers.
However in an analogous art Meredith discloses wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other phone numbers.
[the processor calculates a first fraud score for the first mobile device and a second fraud score for the second mobile device. For example, a fraud score may take into account one or several features that may be indicative that a registration involves a fraudulent cloned mobile device. (Meredith et al., column 9, lines 43-48)]
[At step 255, the processor determines whether the difference between the greater of the two fraud scores and the lesser of the two fraud scores exceeds another threshold value. (Meredith et al., column 13, lines 32-35)]
Jarc, Rambo, and Meredith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc and Rambo to incorporate the teachings of Meredith et al. to include wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, and wherein other identifiers are other phone numbers, wherein the individual score for an individual phone number comprises a plurality of score components, including a first score component and other score components, wherein the first score component is based on the number of messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the first score component is further based on an age of individual messages directed to the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are based on the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers, wherein the number of messages directed to the other phone numbers influence the other score components if the other phone numbers have a threshold number of common phone number digits with the individual phone number, wherein the other score components are further based on an age of individual messages directed to the other phone numbers, in order to detect fraudulent usage by a cloned mobile device through the use of device location tracking and current usage information. (Meredith et al., column 15, lines 50-62)]
Regarding claim 14,
Jarc in view of Rambo discloses the computing device of Claim 9, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, wherein the plurality of identifiers is a plurality of phone numbers are limited to at least one of phone numbers within a predetermined range, phone numbers have a predetermined area code, or phone numbers within a predetermined geographic region.
However in an analogous art Meredith discloses wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, wherein the plurality of identifiers is a plurality of phone numbers are limited to at least one of phone numbers within a predetermined range, phone numbers have a predetermined area code, or phone numbers within a predetermined geographic region.
[respective visiting location registers (VLRs) may be integrated within each MSC 132A and 132B, which function as temporary repositories of authentication and service validation information, subscription information, and other information pertaining to visiting user subscriptions and services when a user's mobile device is located in a particular geographic region serviced by a particular MSC/VLR. For example, MSC 132A may be designated to serve and administer a first coverage area including wireless access network 120A. Thus, MSC 132A may maintain, e.g., in a visiting location register (VLR), user profile records for mobile devices currently serviced by base stations within the portion of the network that is the responsibility of MSC 132A (e.g., mobile device 102). (Meredith et al., column 3 and 4, lines 1-12)]
Jarc, Rambo, and Meredith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of message retrieval and transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jarc and Rambo to incorporate the teachings of Meredith et al. to include wherein the individual identifier is an individual phone number, wherein the plurality of identifiers is a plurality of phone numbers are limited to at least one of phone numbers within a predetermined range, phone numbers have a predetermined area code, or phone numbers within a predetermined geographic region, in order to detect fraudulent usage by a cloned mobile device through the use of device location tracking and current usage information. (Meredith et al., column 15, lines 50-62)]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ELAHIAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/D.E./DANIEL ELAHIAN, Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407 10/16/2025